The Instigator
lanscaper11234
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
iaminneedofhelp
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Wrong doings are created by good intentions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
lanscaper11234
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 667 times Debate No: 49208
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

lanscaper11234

Pro

Hey guys, this is my first time creating an argument here so bear with me if I'm not really that good with this.
I am proposing a debate. A debate which is somewhat trivial but interesting. I agree with the idea that wrong doings are mostly created with the intention of being good/ doing something good.

so yeah, if anybody is interested , you're more than welcome to rebuke my statement.
iaminneedofhelp

Con

Ok here's my resolution:
I am arguing that the wrong doings are most often intentionally created to be wrong doings.
I agree this is trivial but interesting.
Good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
lanscaper11234

Pro

Alright, to begin , i would like to state that these points would be very suggestive. If you do not agree, its cool. Anyway, wrong doings are created by the actions with good intentions. To support this , I would like to use a common crime in under-developed countries. Stealing. Yes it is a wrong doing, everyone agrees with that. But what had driven the thief to steal? To provide for his family/ himself. He/ she did not steal just for the kick of it, but he did it under the influence of a single idea. To provide.

- rebuttal stated
iaminneedofhelp

Con

Ok I think it would be nice if, over the course of the time, we keep our rebuttal short to around 200 words? Do you agree?
Anyway, I am going to use your principles but rebut them. Stealing. When someone in a HIC commits a robbery is it still OK? You are taking from an innocent person although you, usually, have a decent life and do not need to commit these crimes. It's greed. Think about all the people in the UK and USA who are on expensive drugs like heroin and cocaine. To get these drugs they will rob innocent people of their money to get their drug which is not a necessity. Where is the good intention in that? They are getting harmful drugs, for harmful means ( not just to themselves but others), by harmful means - theft.
Debate Round No. 2
lanscaper11234

Pro

Alright then, 200 - 300 words? . I see your point. But id like to ask one thing , what caused them ( HIC ) to steal? and yes, 'good intentions', the idea of it is subjective to everyone.
iaminneedofhelp

Con

I'm not sure if you understand the meaning of HIC: High Income Country. And if you mean what I think you mean; I thought I explained that. The drugs caused them to steal, they never had any good intentions with the drugs did they? They didn't think about helping children by taking drugs or helping the elderly. Granted, 'good intentions' is subjective yet that should have been worded properly in your resolution then. I can't see your argument here, can you define your developments a bit better because I seem to be repeating myself.
Debate Round No. 3
lanscaper11234

Pro

i see, so there are two different definitions to HIC. Well, i was in the understanding that HIC is = High Income Class. But anyway, why are we driving to the morality of drug use and drug-influenced actions? My previous statement stated a thief in a UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRY, I am not talking about someone who lives in a rich country. Granted, yes, the topic is universal, but still, if you take the perspective of a man with4 children and a wife to feed, he has no job, no other siblings/family members to back him up, therefore he goes into stealing, with the thought of providing for his family. Yes i did repeated the example i used by simply because we are being diverted into another topic.

Now, since this statement just goes in a loop, let me ask you this. What is the nature of survival? is it good or bad? Just simply answer that.
iaminneedofhelp

Con

Ok.
The nature of survival is not either in my opinion. To survive, you struggle and fight and the strongest wins or in humans case the cleverest wins. I do not believe that survival is a 'good intention' but I believe it's a strong instinct. I also believe that animals in nature, and indeed humans, will kill in COLD BLOOD to get a better life for themselves, which again is greed. I believe that most wrong doings are created by greed. Granted, there are exceptions but in the end why do domesticated cats kill? This is a wrong doing but they do it because it's in their nature and they want to kill little, harmless mammals. That's not a 'good intention' its just instinct and so my point resounds; wrong doings are created by greed and/or instinct. Another example could be the fox hunting in the UK. Every year in the UK around 6,000 foxes are killed (Defra - http://tinyurl.com...) and this is a COLD BLOODED massacre. This has no good intentions towards the fox where, eventually, the wrong doings will occur. The majority of wrong doings are not started as good intentions, just out of greed, instinct and pleasure.
Debate Round No. 4
lanscaper11234

Pro

Alright, i'm sorry if i'm going to make this short, for i don't have enough time . Anyway, since it is clearly obvious that you're going to win this debate , so for that, I say thank you for participating in my debate, and you sir/mam is awesome.

anyway, to end this debate, all I want to state is this : Every decision we make is often the result of our instinct. And since that the judgement of what is good and right is subjective and differs from other peoples view. In my point of view, most of our decisions are in good intentions, whether to provide for ourselves, our families or friends.

there, to conclude my losing argument. Hope that we can do this again! Take Care my opponent!
iaminneedofhelp

Con

iaminneedofhelp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MysticMansion 2 years ago
MysticMansion
The person who seems to be losing happens to be right. Mankind does nothing that he does not see a good in. So all things good and evil come from a foundation of a good that the individual sees in the act. For example when a thief robs and kills someone they do so because of the good they recognize in gaining money without work. The evil they accept for the good that they desire. All sin is the same whether against mankind or nature. The fox hunters see the value of their entertainment.

A person finds a dish that tastes marvellous they eat. They continue to eat and at some point the good that they still recognize in the taste can be outweighed by the thought of becoming sick if they continue to ram the food down their own throats. Romans found one solution vomiting rooms. In general when one good is outweighed by a recognizable evil then the person will desist. So man will prevent himself from participation in anything that he recognizes as evil to him.

The difficulty is in recognizing that some people who look human like us can be so tremendously selfish as to do unbelievable evil to others for such simple good or gain for themselves.

St Thomas Aquinas said that the road to Hell is paved by good intentions. This is what he meant. Fortunately so is the road to Heaven.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
lanscaper11234iaminneedofhelpTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con would have won the debate if he hadn't forfeited the last round. Forfeit is a loss, points pro.